Literature Review on the Different Types of Breast Implants: Advantages and Disadvantages

Main Article Content

Ana Laura Esmeralda Muñoz Avendaño

Abstract

Breast implants are devices used in cosmetic and reconstructive surgery to increase the volume and improve the shape of the breasts. In this study, the different types of breast implants available in clinical practice were investigated. Four main types were identified: saline implants, silicone gel implants, highly cohesive silicone gel implants, and double lumen implants.


Saline implants consist of a silicone shell filled with sterile saline. They have advantages such as the ability to adjust volume during surgery, easy rupture detection and lower cost. However, they may have a less natural feel and a higher risk of wrinkling and rippling.


Silicone gel implants are widely used because of their more natural look and feel. Silicone gel is cohesive and offers a consistency similar to breast tissue. They have a lower incidence of wrinkling and rippling, greater durability and less sensitivity to cold. However, detection of ruptures can be more difficult and there is a potential risk of capsular contracture.


Highly cohesive silicone gel implants, also known as anatomical implants, are designed to mimic the natural shape and projection of the breast. They have predictable aesthetic results, a lower incidence of capsular contracture and greater resistance to displacement. However, they may require longer incisions and have a higher cost.


Double lumen implants have two separate shell layers, one internal with cohesive silicone gel and the other external with saline solution. They offer an additional layer of security in case of rupture of the inner shell and allow volume adjustment during surgery. However, they may have a less natural feel and greater technical complexity.

Article Details

How to Cite
Ana Laura Esmeralda Muñoz Avendaño. (2023). Literature Review on the Different Types of Breast Implants: Advantages and Disadvantages. International Journal of Medical Science and Clinical Research Studies, 3(05), 990–994. https://doi.org/10.47191/ijmscrs/v3-i5-46
Section
Articles

References

I. Derby BM, Codner MA. Textured silicone breast implant use in primary augmentation: core data update and review. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015; 135(1):113-124. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000000832.

II. Maxwell GP, Gabriel A. Breast implant design. Gland Surg 2017; 6(2):148-153.

doi:10.21037/gs.2016.11.09.

III. Gabriel A, Maxwell GP. The evolution of breast implants. Clin Plast Surg 2015; 42(4):399-404. doi:10.1016/j.cps.2015.06.015.

IV. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Procedural statistics trends 1992-2012.

www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2012/plastic-surgery-statistics-full-report-2012.pdf. Accessed January 17, 2019.

V. American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Plastic surgery statistics report 2016.

www.plasticsurgery.org/documents/News/Statistics/2016/plasticsurgery-statistics-full-report-2016.pdf. Accessed January 17, 2019.

VI. Henderson PW, Nash D, Laskowski M, Grant RT. Objective comparison of commercially available breast implant devices. Aesthetic Plast Surg 2015; 39(5):724-732. doi:10.1007/s00266-015-0537-1.

VII. Adams WP Jr, Mallucci P. Breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2012; 130(4):597e-611e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e318262f607.

VIII. Spear SL, Jespersen MR. Breast implants: saline or silicone? Aesthet Surg J 2010; 30(4):557-570. doi:10.1177/1090820X10380401

IX. Cronin TD, Gerow FJ. Augmentation mammaplasty: a new "natural feel" prosthesis. In: Transactions of the Third International Conference of Plastic Surgery: October 13-18, 1963, Washington, DC.

X. Maxwell GP, Gabriel A. The evolution of breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 134(suppl 1):12S-17S. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000000348.

XI. Hillard C, Fowler JD, Barta R, Cunningham B. Silicone breast implant rupture: a review. Gland Surg 2017; 6(2):163-168.

doi:10.21037/gs.2016.09.12.

XII. Derby BM, Codner MA. Textured silicone breast implant use in primary augmentation: core data update and review. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015; 135(1):113-124. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000000832.

XIII. Tugwell P, Wells G, Peterson J, et al. Do silicone breast implants cause rheumatologic disorders? A systematic review for a court-appointed national science panel. Arthritis Rheum 2001; 44(11):2477-2484. pmid:11710703.

XIV. Alpert BS, Lalonde DH. MOC-PS(SM) CME article: breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2008; 121(suppl 4):1-7.

doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000305933.31540.5d

XV. Hidalgo DA, Spector JA. Breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 133(4):567e-583e. doi:10.1097/PRS.00000000000000000033.

XVI. ClinicalTrials.gov. Study of the safety and effectiveness of Motiva Implants®. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03579901. Accessed January 17, 2019.

XVII. Establishment Labs. Motiva Implants .https://motivaimplants.com/whymotiva/innovation-for-enhanced-safety/. Accessed January 17, 2019.

XVIII. Sforza M, Zaccheddu R, Alleruzzo A, et al. Preliminary 3-year evaluation of experience with silksurface and velvetsurface Motiva silicone breast implants: a single-center experience with 5813 consecutive breast augmentation cases. Aesthet Surg J 2018; 38(suppl 2):S62-S73.

doi:10.1093/asj/sjx150.

XIX. Huemer GM, Wenny R, Aitzetmüller MM, Duscher D. Motiva ergonomix round silksurface silicone breast implants: outcome analysis of 100 primary breast augmentations over 3 years and technical considerations. Plast Reconstr Surg 2018; 141(6):831e-842e. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000004367

XX. Lista F, Ahmad J. Evidence-based medicine: augmentation mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 132(6):1684-1696.

doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182a80880. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182a80880.

XXI. Namnoum JD, Largent J, Kaplan HM, Oefelein MG, Brown MH. Primary breast augmentation clinical trial outcomes stratifi ed by surgical incision, anatomical placement and implant device type. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2013; 66(9):1165-1172. doi:10.1016/j.bjps.2013.04.046.

XXII. Handel N, Garcia ME, Wixtrom R. Breast implant rupture: causes, incidence, clinical impact, and management. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013; 132(5):1128-1137. doi:10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182a4c243.

XXIII. Hölmich LR, Friis S, Fryzek JP, et al. Incidence of silicone breast implant rupture. Arch Surg 2003; 138(7):801-806. doi:10.1001/archsurg.138.7.801.

XXIV. Mccarthy CM, Pusic AL, Disa JJ, Cordeiro PG, Cody HS 3rd, Mehrara B. Breast cancer in the previously augmented breast. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007; 119(1):49-58. doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000244748.38742.1f

XXV. Egeberg A, Sørensen JA. The impact of breast implant location on the risk of capsular contraction. Ann Plast Surg 2016; 77(2):255-259. doi:10.1097/SAP.00000000000000000227.

XXVI. Wickman M. Rapid versus slow tissue expansion for breast reconstruction: a three-year follow-up. Plast Reconstr Surg 1995; 95(4):712-718. pmid:7892316.

XXVII. Kjøller K, Hölmich LR, Jacobsen PH, et al. Epidemiological investigation of local complications after cosmetic breast implant surgery in Denmark. Ann Plast Surg 2002; 48(3):229-237. pmid:11862025.

XXVIII. Handel N, Jensen JA, Black Q, Waisman JR, Silverstein MJ. The fate of breast implants: a critical analysis of complications and outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg 1995; 96(7):1521-1533. pmid:7480271.

XXIX. Henriksen TF, Hölmich LR, Fryzek JP, et al. Incidence and severity of short-term complications after breast augmentation: results from a nationwide breast implant registry. Ann Plast Surg 2003; 51(6):531539. doi:10.1097/01.sap.0000096446.44082.60.

XXX. Fernandes JR, Salinas HM, Broelsch GF, et al. Prevention of capsular contracture with photochemical tissue passivation. Plast Reconstr Surg 2014; 133(3):571-577. doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000438063.31043.79.

XXXI. Wong CH, Samuel M, Tan BK, Song C. Capsular contracture in subglandular breast augmentation with textured versus smooth breast implants: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg 2006; 118(5):12241236. doi:10.1097/01.prs.0000237013.50283.d2.

Most read articles by the same author(s)